Heard. 1. Alongwith present revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 23 days has also been filed. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay is condoned and application stand allowed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner states that order passed by the State Commission is a non-speaking order and no reasons whatsoever have been given while disposing of the appeal. In support, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others, IV 2010 CPJ 61 (SC). 4. Operative portion of the translated copy of the impugned order is reproduced as under; "The District Forum below thoroughly considering entire facts and evidence on record has passed the order. Therefore, we do not find any justification to discuss on entire facts and evidence of the complaint again. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error in the order-dated 18.7.2006 passed by learned District Forum. Since the District Forum considering the facts of the case has granted proper relief to the complainant wherein there is no ground for interfere with it. Thus, on merits the appeal has no substance in it. Otherwise also, the Consumer Protection Act has been created for quick and easy disposal of the consumer disputes. The consumer expects quick decision of the complaint, therefore, the general process has been kept out of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum and Commission has to decide the appeal and complaint on the principles of natural justice. If the relief granted by District Forum and Commission based on correct findings and considered view, then as per intention of the Act, 1986, there remains no need again to examine the entire facts and evidence on record. It is correct as per Section 3 of the Act, 1986 that for time factor all the provisions of the Act and other law shall be in addition and not as deficiency. Therefore, the order dated 18.7.2006 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur-II in Complaint No.667/2006 is confirmed and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on merits". 5. A bare perusal of impugned order shows that no reasons whatsoever, have been recorded therein. Hon’ble Supreme Court in HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2004) 10 SCC 86 observed: "4. At the admission stage, we passed an order on 21.7.2000 as follows : In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms : We have heard the Law Officer of HVPNL, appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal in the details and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal’. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellant forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressla Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission. Issue notice for remand of the matter to the State Commission for disposal afresh in accordance with law. Status quo, as of today, shall be maintained by the parties". 5. The State Commission of Haryana did not give any reason for dismissing the first appeal. That order was confirmed by the National Commission. Inasmuch as there was no discussion by the State Commission in the first appeal and for the reasons given by us in the order which we have passed on 21.7.2000, the orders of the National Commission and the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission to dispose of the case in accordance with law and in the light of the order passed by us on 21.7.2000 after giving notice to the parties". 6. Again, in Canadian 4 Ur Immigration Ser & Anr. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (s) 8811/2009, decided on 21.2.2011, Hon’ble Apex Court observed ; "A bare perusal of the impugned order of the National Commission shows that no reasons have been recorded therein. It is well settled that even an order of affirmance must contain reasons, even though in brief, vide Divisional Forest Officer VS. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253, vide para 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the National Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving reasons". 7. In the present case also, State Commission has not given any reason whatsoever while dismissing the appeal. 8 In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we allow the present revision petition. Impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and matter is remanded back to the State Commission to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving appropriate reasons. 9. State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal preferably, within six months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 24.09.2013.